There are less than 50,000 miles of interstate highways in the US. If we added a 3rd rail or similar system for powering cars as they traveled range and efficiency quickly become a non issue.
Granted, the interstate highway system would just be the start eventually you would want to cover just about every road. Not to mention safety concerns etc, but it's a real option.
I am continually amazed at the angst it causes many people when you suggest that the current American way of life will have to change. When you say that in 20 years people won't be driving everywhere a lot of folks really freak out.
The arithmetic plainly indicates we simply will not all be driving or riding in cars regularly in the future. Hydrogen vs. lithium batteries vs. gasoline doesn't even enter into it. There simply won't be the joules for everyone to get about that way. People will be walking, bicycling, and riding boring old 19th century speed trains. Peak Oil is now-ish and nothing else is set to provide the joules necessary to power personal vehicles on the current scale, regardless of vehicle power plants.
However, like Tesla's Supercharger idea perhaps a targeted rollout of functionality to connect major centers combined with the existing charging infrastructure would settle the "range anxiety" issues.
[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/hf/pl11028/ch...
It reminds me of a young child asking:
"If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns.
Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns
Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles.
Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections.
That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus
Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply)
Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you?
PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
* Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass.
* The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this.
* This quote from wikipedia:
> However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva...
* And of course just the overall scale.
Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true.
As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway.
* The distances involved...
There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective.
"In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction."
3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems.
At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.